Trying to find new spins on old concepts shouldn't be (and isn't) necessary, but it shouldn't be condemned, either

I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn concepts that don't make sense in their own concept.

Twilight "vampires" fail because if they did exist, they'd break major laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and many other natural laws. And if you disregard those laws, without providing suitable laws to sustain them, they fail under their own laws.

Teleporters, Time Travel and numerous other "soft" sciences work because they provide a pseudo-scientific basis for their existence. If you're actually theorising a massive density, invulnerable creature that survives purely on an organic soup created by an inferior life-form; and has a biological component that itself acts intelligently, then there's an awful lot of laws you have to re-write to accommodate it. If you then want to add in a hyperactive shapeshifter than draws physical matter from nowhere, survives on the same soup, and is at constant war with a far superior enemy, which can re-create itself purely by swapping soup with another inferior life-form, then the basic laws of causality collapse into an author wishlist.

Fireballs may not exist; but thermodynamics, conservation of energy/momentum etc. that allow humanity to survive have to take account of this.

"Normal" vampires are creatures cursed by a Higher power to act like blood junkies, resembling the effects of known diseases (Porphyria/Rabies), known drug effects (PCP, Heroin) and base human fears (Xenophobia, Nictophobia, Sexual Predatory behaviour).

If Worgen have Crinos forms that draw power from Elder Gods, then I've no problem with them. If they have normal platemail that shifts with them, then there's something that needs looking at.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. If you can suspend your disbelief enough to believe that we're fighting demons by slinging shadow magic at them, you can suspend your disbelief to believe in vampires, even vegetarian ones or ones that glitter in sunlight.

anthony87:While reading this I was reminded of the letter that a Twillight fan wrote to Universal complaining that The Wolfman was nothing like the wolf pack from Twlight.

I had never felt such rage whilst reading a letter in my life.

I heard of but never read that, if you had a link that would be wonderful.

I like that the article points out on multiple occasions that we can still hate twilight just so long as we remember that interpretations of mystical creatures from Nosferatu to Blade have changed and we are normally very accepting. It's just in the Twilight franchises case, it's gone terribly wrong and so we associate that change with why it's so bad.

Though, no matter the case, anything that is penned towards the scene/emo tween girl demographic and sparkles I will likely hate. I said likely, thank the gods for wiggle room.

Not a bad piece, although I must disagree. The thing I refuse to stand about the Twilight vampire is that it has absolutely none of the dignity that's been afforded to its type. Even the Count from Sesame Street has a certain gravitas for the environment that it's in, but Edward does not. There is absolutely nothing about the story that is related to his being a vampire that you couldn't replace with a mortal jock, and his vampiric characteristics have been literally defanged into just a nice little side dish. "Oh, you're a vampire? That's cool."

If Meyer wanted to play up his undeath in a vampires against the rest of civilization scenario, then THAT could have made a more interesting romance. But it wasn't. The whole concept of his being a vampire was for no other reason than to cut off the balls of a cultural icon and monster, and that is why I object to it.

one thing I would say about dwarves is that while most people make them the stocky scottish beer swilling type, think about the Elder Scrolls universe! In that dwarves are an ancient type of elf who are obsessed with steam and magic, not stone and craftsmanship! pretty sure their armour makes them the same height as regular humans as well!

Oh dear heavens, THANK YOU! Thank you for pointing out something I have thought for a long, long time!

I dislike Twilight as well, but I never really understood the argument that the vampires in Twilight aren't "real vampires". The truth is, there is no "right" way of potraying vampires, since how they are potrayed is open to the interpretation of the author. If the author of Twilight decided that the vampires in her fictional universe will be vegetarians and sparkle in sunlight, that is her choice. There is no rule that an author absolutely must adher to standard conventions of how vampires are potrayed.

To be honest, I think fantasy authors are already way too stuck to the idea that the inclusion and/or potrayal of a certain race needs to follow certain guidelines. Why do all orcs need to be primitive warriors? Why do all elves need to be tall, graceful and make for good archers? Why do dwarves "have to be" included in every fantasy work (not that I mind them)? Really, it's kind of sad that in a genre with numerous possibilities, authors are so unwilling to explore new ideas and concepts.

If you can suspend your disbelief enough to believe that we're fighting demons by slinging shadow magic at them, you can suspend your disbelief to believe in vampires, even vegetarian ones or ones that glitter in sunlight.

Not if the basis for them being vegetarians isn't there. Demons and shadow magic have their own rules set down. The ones for Twilight actually contradict each other.

DJmagma:i beleive as long as your true to the base material, you can take some liberties. add stuff, take stuff out, tweak the formula. usually for the sake of realism, or because of how difficult it is to achieve. (i had a good example, but seemed to forgot.)

CoverYourHead:Very well said, and it makes a whole lot of sense. I never really noticed how we get all fumed up over vampires, but not about trolls and elves.

Also, interesting side note, vampires didn't die in sunlight until a popular movie came out in the 50's, at which point it suddenly become taboo to go against the idea.

And I'm totally making a worgen mage.

if that's true, then we should be able to forgive the "sparkle in the sunlight" thing. but we won't. oh hell no.

also, vampires started out as humanoid blood sucking monsters, not emo fags who live forever.

Well, with Twilight and crap, the whole "But he's a vampire!" is just a vice. Edward could have been a serial rapist, a demon, a dwarf, a regular fucking guy, and the story would still be exactly the fucking same. However, the author decided she anted to take a beloved image of horror, and dumb it down to an all time low, so she could make a quick buck off of tween girls.

Just a thought

EDIT: also, it brings down the monster for the rest of us. 10 years ago, vampires were bad ass. Now, they are incredibly gay and nobody in their right mindset would think they have a good place amongst other dangerous (mythical) beings.

Actually John, I think part of the issue is that your dealing with ancient mythology vs. popular fantasy. To the best of my knowlege "Orcs" as they exist now have no real mythological counterpart. Nobody ever claimed real knights fought off "Orc Hordes". It leaves itself to a certain degree of interpetation. On the other hand, Vampires and Werewolves can be traced back to long-lasting mythologies, and as creepy as it is you can find that similar myths occured all over the world. Heck, one amusing thing about Werewolves was that Lewis and Clark allegedly claimed they were read and that they had met Native Americans who could shapeshift.

Speaking of shapeshifters, when dealing with fantasy, that's another key element right there when it comes to werewolves in general. To hardcore fantasy enthusiasts there is a differance between someone who has been cursed with Lycanthropy, and someone who simply has the abillity to assume a wolf-like shape. The distinction has actually been used in a few stories. For example when a wizard or fey creature who can alter their form runs into a Lycanthrope, which might lead to two ginormous wolves going at it, though only one of them is actually a werewolf.

It's sort of like if someone was to take people with vaguely scaly skin and say they are dragons...

I think there are some limits to artistic liscence.

What's more I'll argue that when people first started doing the romantic vampire thing, it was differant, and it was interesting because of the monsterous nature of vampires and such. As time has gone on they have simply been turned into a group of superhumans who may or may not actually NEED to prey on humanity... and they have also become progressively whinier and more "emo" than in any way dark, or tragic (which was the original point of the first stories).

I loved the backstory of how Worgen came to be. Apperantly they were actualy a trans-dimensional race brought to Azeroth by a powerhungry wizzard to use as an unstoppable army. The cursed denizens of Gilneas are actualy infected with mutated version of the worgen blood.

What Blizzard has been doing with Warcraft lore is realy crazy, increadible, unbelivable, insightfull and puzzling all at the same time.

I always just assumed it was Masquerade rules, with different kinds being different clans. Dracula was Ventrue, Nosferatu was...Nosferatu, and Cullen was Tremere. In the second Masquerade game, it's hinted that sunlight doesn't kill the vamps, that it's just a tool to keep the vampires out of sight and control them. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the working over zombies have gotten, they weren't even originally dead.

Trying to find new spins on old concepts shouldn't be (and isn't) necessary, but it shouldn't be condemned, either

I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn concepts that don't make sense in their own concept.

Twilight "vampires" fail because if they did exist, they'd break major laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and many other natural laws. And if you disregard those laws, without providing suitable laws to sustain them, they fail under their own laws.

Teleporters, Time Travel and numerous other "soft" sciences work because they provide a pseudo-scientific basis for their existence. If you're actually theorising a massive density, invulnerable creature that survives purely on an organic soup created by an inferior life-form; and has a biological component that itself acts intelligently, then there's an awful lot of laws you have to re-write to accommodate it. If you then want to add in a hyperactive shapeshifter than draws physical matter from nowhere, survives on the same soup, and is at constant war with a far superior enemy, which can re-create itself purely by swapping soup with another inferior life-form, then the basic laws of causality collapse into an author wishlist.

Fireballs may not exist; but thermodynamics, conservation of energy/momentum etc. that allow humanity to survive have to take account of this.

"Normal" vampires are creatures cursed by a Higher power to act like blood junkies, resembling the effects of known diseases (Porphyria/Rabies), known drug effects (PCP, Heroin) and base human fears (Xenophobia, Nictophobia, Sexual Predatory behaviour).

If Worgen have Crinos forms that draw power from Elder Gods, then I've no problem with them. If they have normal platemail that shifts with them, then there's something that needs looking at.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. If you can suspend your disbelief enough to believe that we're fighting demons by slinging shadow magic at them, you can suspend your disbelief to believe in vampires, even vegetarian ones or ones that glitter in sunlight.

This argument actually holds some weight. If an element in a unniverse like our own(Twilight) doesn't work as it would in real life, one must do a quick explanation as to why, or elkse you lose realism. Even a cheap handwave is fine, really. This little explanation helps with the willing suspension of disbeleif.

For example, if you character can jump 6 feet straight up,this has to be explained somehow, even if it is as simple as "he is superman". The more crazy the idea, the better the explanation, or the suspension of disbeleif gets strained a little more.

Orks say WAAAGH because they are truly the best version of orks. People hate Garrosh in warcraft because he is so bloodthirsty but he is really just the most orkish one around and that's why he is taking over.

On a side note I won't be getting kittenclysm as I know I will end up just flying around bored out of my mind again as it always ends up that way.

BlindChance:First, John Funk, thank you so much for saying this. Absolutely right.

Chipperz:Actually, White Wolf did it waaaaaaaaay before Stephanie Meyer - the vampires of the World of Darkness are infinitely the most emo twatty bastards I have ever read.

And, in turn, Anne Rice did it way before White Wolf with Interview with the Vampire. She's the person they were ripping off most when they created Vampire: The Masquerade. A few other people too. (For goodness sake, one of the clans is named Nosferatu.) But Anne Rice was clearly the most powerful influence for the setting.

Heh, cheers for linking that letter, I had a great time reading it, he's a very funny guy! I hadn't really thought of Blade as being that World of Darness-ey. I know Underworld had some legal problems with White Wolf that should have been settled with a slight rewriting and being called World of Darkness - The Movie, but I didn't really think that about Blade, too.

Also, while I'd admit that Anne Rice had pretty emo vampires, I'd still say that World of Darkness has more emo wankstain vampires :P

Manicotti:Not a bad piece, although I must disagree. The thing I refuse to stand about the Twilight vampire is that it has absolutely none of the dignity that's been afforded to its type. Even the Count from Sesame Street has a certain gravitas for the environment that it's in, but Edward does not. There is absolutely nothing about the story that is related to his being a vampire that you couldn't replace with a mortal jock, and his vampiric characteristics have been literally defanged into just a nice little side dish. "Oh, you're a vampire? That's cool."

If Meyer wanted to play up his undeath in a vampires against the rest of civilization scenario, then THAT could have made a more interesting romance. But it wasn't. The whole concept of his being a vampire was for no other reason than to cut off the balls of a cultural icon and monster, and that is why I object to it.

Trying to find new spins on old concepts shouldn't be (and isn't) necessary, but it shouldn't be condemned, either

I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn concepts that don't make sense in their own concept.

Twilight "vampires" fail because if they did exist, they'd break major laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and many other natural laws. And if you disregard those laws, without providing suitable laws to sustain them, they fail under their own laws.

Teleporters, Time Travel and numerous other "soft" sciences work because they provide a pseudo-scientific basis for their existence. If you're actually theorising a massive density, invulnerable creature that survives purely on an organic soup created by an inferior life-form; and has a biological component that itself acts intelligently, then there's an awful lot of laws you have to re-write to accommodate it. If you then want to add in a hyperactive shapeshifter than draws physical matter from nowhere, survives on the same soup, and is at constant war with a far superior enemy, which can re-create itself purely by swapping soup with another inferior life-form, then the basic laws of causality collapse into an author wishlist.

Fireballs may not exist; but thermodynamics, conservation of energy/momentum etc. that allow humanity to survive have to take account of this.

"Normal" vampires are creatures cursed by a Higher power to act like blood junkies, resembling the effects of known diseases (Porphyria/Rabies), known drug effects (PCP, Heroin) and base human fears (Xenophobia, Nictophobia, Sexual Predatory behaviour).

If Worgen have Crinos forms that draw power from Elder Gods, then I've no problem with them. If they have normal platemail that shifts with them, then there's something that needs looking at.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. If you can suspend your disbelief enough to believe that we're fighting demons by slinging shadow magic at them, you can suspend your disbelief to believe in vampires, even vegetarian ones or ones that glitter in sunlight.

If I read it right, "That's not realistic" wasn't what he was getting at. "There's no explanation to it" or better yet "there is an explanation which makes no sense at all" sounds about right.

The actual point is relevant, however it gets swept away. If it's regular plate mail, what happens to it? Werewolf folklaw never quite managed this one either, half of them went with "they shift, lose their clothes and end up naked" (Terry Pratchett's Angua), the rest never quite manage it, and if I'm asked to suspend my disbelief, at least have half a lie prepared when my head asks "Why is that?"

Vampires are weakened in sunlight. Over exposure kills them, that's what it's done since the first outbreaks in western literature in the 18th century. What Miss Meyer created was not a vampire, it was a fairy with blood fetish.

I dunno, I'm not upset by it I guess, but the Moonrage Worgen (Pyrewood folks), male and female I presume, all seemed to turn into the same model of "Worgen", as well as the Wolfcult in Grizzly hills, though I think those that transformed were male-only... can't remember right now...

So I understand that they need a distinct shape for the player's perspective, but at the same time, they never really were distinct.

Also, the way they did it wasn't completely unexpected; no matter what the males are shaped after, add boobs and hips and cure the scoliosis to make a female version. Granted, this works a little better for Worgen as they were human at one point...

Vampires and Werewolves are used so often because they represent some of our greatest fears in simple recognizable themes. Vampires are fear of things foreign and diseased. Werewolves are fear of the monster inside you.

When people start using them outside of an easy scare, they take away the value of the originals. I doubt people could watch Dracula and still feel the same way about it.

I don't actually care if someone uses a mythological creature because its recognizable, but werewolves and vampires were created for the reason of being scary. Why can't they stay away from them and stick to elves?

John Funk:Perhaps it isn't the different interpretation at all, but rather the medium in which they're being interpreted. That is, we hate Edward Cullen not because he's a vegetarian vampire who sparkles in the sunlight, but because he's a vegetarian vampire who sparkles in the sunlight in an obscenely popular book aimed at young girls that isn't particularly good. If Edward made his debut in Blade or Buffy or Angel, maybe geeks would have been all over that.

I think more of the outrage over Twilight vampires is that literally the only thing they have in common with "real" vampires is that they drink blood. MovieBob basically nailed it in one of his videos. They're generic superhumans that Meyers decided to call vampires. Literally the only similarities between Twilight vampires and "real" vampires is that they're both pale and drink blood. I personally find it mildly annoying, if only because there's most of a generation who have no concept of what a vampire is actually supposed to be.

I think most people would agree when I say that changing what a vampire is isn't a bad idea, Twilight just did it horribly. Sparkles are fail, my little sister watched the first twilight film (she's 12 btw) and her first reaction was "What the fuck?! Vampire don't sparkle, who the hell are they trying to fool?!" really, I never laughed so hard in my life. The point is that vampires are supposed to be bad ass, but twilight made them whiny emo losers who get hung up over a MORTAL. Dracula never tried to take a walk in the afternoon sun because some chick dumped him. Why? Cause Dracula is the FUCKING SHIT! See where I'm coming from? And the "werewolves" in twilight are actually just shapeshifters (yeah, I read the whole series, I like to have a basis for my rage) so they don't even COUNT. Over all, yeah, a lot of nerds get all hung up over crap that doesn't really matter, to normal people, but if you play WoW for six hours a day (I'm gonna go with a normal side, rather than the ubernerds who play all day every day) on the weekdays, and eight hours or more on the weekends, then you've dedicated a large sum of your life to this game, and that makes it as much a part of you as your children, or mother, or whatever. Like the ID said when they were making Doom 3, players spend so much time playing these games that they feel connected to them, and their right, when you spend 100 hours playing a game, you know it better than most people, and you do have a right to say what's on your mind (about the game I'd assume). So, that's what I think, we protect things that we've grown up with, vampires are legendary, and you don't just walk up to a fantastic idea that has been around for centuries, and go "hmm, I can make it better!!" and not expect any kind of back lash.

John Funk:Perhaps it isn't the different interpretation at all, but rather the medium in which they're being interpreted. That is, we hate Edward Cullen not because he's a vegetarian vampire who sparkles in the sunlight, but because he's a vegetarian vampire who sparkles in the sunlight in an obscenely popular book aimed at young girls that isn't particularly good. If Edward made his debut in Blade or Buffy or Angel, maybe geeks would have been all over that.

I think more of the outrage over Twilight vampires is that literally the only thing they have in common with "real" vampires is that they drink blood. MovieBob basically nailed it in one of his videos. They're generic superhumans that Meyers decided to call vampires. Literally the only similarities between Twilight vampires and "real" vampires is that they're both pale and drink blood. I personally find it mildly annoying, if only because there's most of a generation who have no concept of what a vampire is actually supposed to be.

Frankly, that's all you need.

What a vampire is "supposed to be"? It's a fictional creature! It does not exist!

Trying to find new spins on old concepts shouldn't be (and isn't) necessary, but it shouldn't be condemned, either

I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn concepts that don't make sense in their own concept.

Twilight "vampires" fail because if they did exist, they'd break major laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and many other natural laws. And if you disregard those laws, without providing suitable laws to sustain them, they fail under their own laws.

Teleporters, Time Travel and numerous other "soft" sciences work because they provide a pseudo-scientific basis for their existence. If you're actually theorising a massive density, invulnerable creature that survives purely on an organic soup created by an inferior life-form; and has a biological component that itself acts intelligently, then there's an awful lot of laws you have to re-write to accommodate it. If you then want to add in a hyperactive shapeshifter than draws physical matter from nowhere, survives on the same soup, and is at constant war with a far superior enemy, which can re-create itself purely by swapping soup with another inferior life-form, then the basic laws of causality collapse into an author wishlist.

Fireballs may not exist; but thermodynamics, conservation of energy/momentum etc. that allow humanity to survive have to take account of this.

"Normal" vampires are creatures cursed by a Higher power to act like blood junkies, resembling the effects of known diseases (Porphyria/Rabies), known drug effects (PCP, Heroin) and base human fears (Xenophobia, Nictophobia, Sexual Predatory behaviour).

If Worgen have Crinos forms that draw power from Elder Gods, then I've no problem with them. If they have normal platemail that shifts with them, then there's something that needs looking at.

I have to say Funk that you raise a good point and you present it well. It's also come to my attention that the more rational and resonably presented the arguement the more likely you are to get such reasonable responses such as ^above, Even when they appose your views.

I agree that Twilight vampires are techniclly vampires, I just dont think theyre very GOOD vampires. The notion that they Sparkle is just horrible (On top of everything else). BUt of course thats just my opinion. I guess Steph' Was just cashing in on the fact that most people li- Ohhhhhh......Shiny object..........

I want to agree with you, Funk, but I've stood on both sides of this argument in the past, and find it more interesting to play the Devil's Advocate here. I will try to do that.

I don't think fiction should strictly adhere to certain archetypes. On the opposite, I support imagination and experimentation, trying out new ideas, twisting familiar concepts into new angles. But is there a point where this new concept strays too far from what we've come to accept? Where is the line drawn between "a new interpretation of X" and "that's nothing like X at all"? Is there even such a line? There might be.

If my interpretation of a vampire is that of a kindly creature that glitters in the sunlight, can drink blood only if it wants to, behaves in the same way as humans do, and tends to helps old ladies cross the road at night, is it still a vampire?

Maybe some of you will say "Yes, it is a vampire if you want to be vampire, since you're the author here". Okay, I agree to that. I've taken the role of author and if I so want it I can make my vampires to be large fat mammals that eat grass and produce milk. These may be called vampires, but they're not GOOD vampires. I've strayed so far from the base concept, from what we've come to expect of vampires, that calling it a vampire is no longer appropriate. I'll call it a "Cow".

And that's sort of the point I'm probably not doing a very good job at making. Whether right or wrong, whether we should or shouldn't, we've come to expect certain characteristics from certain concepts, and straying too far from these expectations might yield a concept that shares the same name, but none of the spirit.

Vampires and werewolves have been done so much by popular culture that we may have simply grown more resistant and more critical to new interpretations of these old concepts than others.

Exterminas:Oh, I think Werewolves and Vampires are treated special because they are somewhat the most popular fantasy characters and offer little variation because they have a very narrow characterization. The elven example you made can illustrate this point. You mixed stuff from dark elves, tolkien elves, high elves and so on, the things are actually called different, while the only commom attribute is a tendancy to pointy ears. So elves are a huge categeorie. Vampires are not, they are just vampires, because they have these extreme and exact attributes. I think that's why people don't like you messing with them, you are messing with something they believe to know very good.

This leads to another point: Vampires and werewolves are subject to many, if not the most horror movies/comics/games out there, among with dieing teenagers. People feel save about them, thing to have seen everything about them, that's why they bother.

I don't think I agree. The only "required" thing for someone to be a vampire is to have to drink blood for sustenance. And that might not even be the case when it comes to "psychic vampires" or some similar shit. And for werewolves, turning into a wolf is pretty important.

Aside from that, I think, anything goes. Personalities and characteristics don't have to follow the same narrow path...

I fully believe people rail against twilight because it's seen as an affront to their masculinity. Having read the books I can honestly say they'd absolutely rock if given to a competent writer, they have potential as characters. But people will never like them because they have feelings and don't behave like Leonidas or Kharn the Betrayer. It's basically the same as anything that isn't played straight-up masculine and is called 'gay' for it.

Frankly if you transplanted those vampires into another universe they'd probably still fit really well. But they'll forever be judged by 'rar Alucard could kill them' which is so childish and 'mine's bigger' that it causes me to wince.

That'd ignoring the sexual undertones I've written about on here before which a lot of people on here miss when they think of vampires.

John...for all your great points...you skipped the most important fact.They are NOT werewolves...simply because THEY ARE WORGEN! Cmon its the bloody damn official name Blizzard gave them :Dwe call em werewolves cuz they check on the check list u gave but....fact is...they are not...they are a WoW version.....as u say a new approach to the werewolves...and tbh even if they call em pinkytoes....id still say....WOLVERINE FTW :D that was the 1st thought on my mind...."WTF Ally`s are getting wolverine????"

GothmogII:Well, speaking on the dwarves. BioWare made an admirable stab at it with Dragon Age. But, while I enjoyed the lore behind them and how their government and cities were set up, I couldn't really take them as dwarves due the blandness of the accent. I mean, you've got a smorgasbord of accents on display, various English, French and the soothing vaguely Hispanic tones of Zev, but, the dwarves...they get stuck with the generoamerican vo work. I mean...maybe if they weren't going to take the Highlands route they could have gone back their Norse roots. Yeah, that would've been better, a race of underground Norwegians.

As for the Worgen, I never had a problem with them in the first place. But I agree, the niggling over them is pretty silly.

That's interesting. I couldn't really relate to the Dragon Age dwarves because to me an hierarchic organisation this complex wouldn't scream dwarvish..

I'm too busy being incensed by the furry porn star modelling of the female Worgen, while the male gets to look like a proper beast. Seriously, what is that about? I want to play a female werewolf. That means I have a sexy human female but she turns into a wolf, not a taller, bustier, hairier version of herself.